3 ms·

This is great, but I wish there were legislation specifying in detail specific circumstances in which actions should be blocked rather than our tax dollars be w

This is great, but I wish there were legislation specifying in detail specific circumstances in which actions should be blocked rather than our tax dollars be wasted suing these people. Ultimately tax dollars are spent to sue, and consumers’ money is indirectly spent on the defense too.

whoknowswhat11 5y ago
And there is a ton of waste just in doing these deals, negotiating them. Since the govt already approved them they did slot divestment per govt request, which may need to be unwound? Will the govt pay them? It's a colossal waste of time and energy when just having some much clearer guidelines, or being able to pay $500K to get a likely ruling based on a proposed deal would save a ton of everyones time (and our tax dollars). Quick note that I think the case is relatively weak at first glance. The case highlights for example routes that used to have both carriers and makes NO mention if those routes also have other carriers which is such a critical distinction it's kind of appalling the DOJ wasn't able to analyze that. Ie, a route with just AA and Jetblue - comp is DEF reduced with this. However, a route that they were both margin or second in against on the majors out of NY etc - not sure comp is harmed by beefing the AA/Jetblue position. A fair bit of their antitrust has been surprisingly weak, but I like this because at least it is focused on supposed consumer harm rather what they were pushing for before (ie, to help businesses without regard for consumer).
Daishiman 5y ago
The unintended consequence of codifying the specific circumstances is that companies will do everything in possible to escape said criteria to justify a merger, complying with the letter but not the spirit of the law.
- endisneigh 5y ago
  That’s fine as it wouldn’t be necessarily exhaustive - presumably it would just revert to the present status quo.

whoknowswhat11 5y ago

And there is a ton of waste just in doing these deals, negotiating them. Since the govt already approved them they did slot divestment per govt request, which may need to be unwound? Will the govt pay them? It's a colossal waste of time and energy when just having some much clearer guidelines, or being able to pay $500K to get a likely ruling based on a proposed deal would save a ton of everyones time (and our tax dollars). Quick note that I think the case is relatively weak at first glance. The case highlights for example routes that used to have both carriers and makes NO mention if those routes also have other carriers which is such a critical distinction it's kind of appalling the DOJ wasn't able to analyze that. Ie, a route with just AA and Jetblue - comp is DEF reduced with this. However, a route that they were both margin or second in against on the majors out of NY etc - not sure comp is harmed by beefing the AA/Jetblue position. A fair bit of their antitrust has been surprisingly weak, but I like this because at least it is focused on supposed consumer harm rather what they were pushing for before (ie, to help businesses without regard for consumer).

Daishiman 5y ago

The unintended consequence of codifying the specific circumstances is that companies will do everything in possible to escape said criteria to justify a merger, complying with the letter but not the spirit of the law.

endisneigh 5y ago
That’s fine as it wouldn’t be necessarily exhaustive - presumably it would just revert to the present status quo.